The Instigator
KingDebater
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points
The Contender
Muted
Pro (for)
Losing
23 Points

2+2=5, Not 4.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 9 votes the winner is...
KingDebater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/7/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,610 times Debate No: 29978
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (9)

 

KingDebater

Con

Arguments:
Argument #1: The Four Argument
P1. Four divided by Two is Two
C1. Therefore, two plus two is four
P2. Four isn't equal to five.
C2. Therefore, 2+2 doesn't equal five

Argument #2: The Odd Argument
P1. Zero is an even number
P2. Zero plus an even number equals an even number.
C1. Therefore, an even number added to an even number always equals an even number.
P3. Two is an even number
P4. Five is an odd number
C2. Therefore, 2 add 2 doesn't equal five.
Muted

Pro

Con has presented an argument and as such he also has a BoP. Con makes several assumptions which I will here debunk. The first is that he assumes that 1+1=2. From this invalid assumption, he then proceeds to claim that 1+1+1+1=4. This is simply incorrect. The fact of the matter is that if I define 2 to be the half of 5, and 1 to be the half of 2, then 1+1=2 and 1+1+1+1=(1+1)+(1+1)=2+2=5. This, within the definition I am using, elegantly and simply proves the fact that 2+2=5.

The second argument of his centers around an unsound premise. It is not because P2 is true that C1 is true. In fact, it is the other way around. It is because an equal number added to an equal number has a sum which is equal to an even number that zero when added with an even number produces the sum of an even number.

It is unfortunate that Con dogmatically asserts that 5 is an odd number. According to dictionary, odd is an adjective with two meanings.

Different from what is usual or expected; strange
Having one left over as a remainder when divided by two.

In the first definition, 4 could just be as odd as 5 because I do not expect either, thus, with this definition and his syllogism, both 4 and 5 are not the sum of two. However, with the second definition, I have already explained above that given the definitions (lacking by Con, therefore provided by Pro), 5/2=2=1+1. This is a very clear proof of the fact that 2+2=5, not 4.

However, in this second argument, Pro asserts that just because 5 is (supposedly) an odd number, and 2 is an even number, 2+2=/=5 and thus must be equal to 4. This is a logical fallacy known as "false dichotomy." From philosophy-index, "A false dichotomy or false dilemma occurs when an argument presents two options and ignores, either purposefully or out of ignorance, other alternatives.
In general, a false dichotomy gives the impression that the two oppositie options are mutually exclusive (that is, only one of them may be the case, never both) and that at least one of them is true, that is, they represent all of the possible options."

As can be easily seen, 2+2=n, where according to Con, n is an even integer. He has not fulfilled his BoP to show that 2+2=4 instead of 5. He has ignored all the other possible "even" answers. Thus, I solemnly request a vote for Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
KingDebater

Con

Pro has just been asserting that I'm wrong. He gives no valid arguments. Correct me if I'm wrong, pro.
Muted

Pro

It is a fascinating argument that Con has proffered in this second round. In it, he asserts that I assert that he is wrong. To ascertain the truth of this claim, we must define "assert".

According to Marriam-Webster, it is
1. to state or declare positively and often forcefully or aggressively.

2. a : to demonstrate the existence of.

b : to speak or act in a manner that compels recognition especially of one's rights

It is patently obvious that the Pro case in the first round does comply with all the definitions given. However, this leads to an interesting question. Is asserting wrong? The answer lies somewhere in the negative. An assertion which demonstrates the existence of something necessarily cannot be wrong. Thus, half of Con's second round argument is valid as well as sound. It is worthwhile to note that under this definition, Con himself has been asserting throughout this debate.

The second contention we come to is the question of validity of argumentation. What is validity?

According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://www.iep.utm.edu... is: "A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.

....


According to the definition of a deductive argument (see the Deduction and Induction), the author of a deductive argument always intends that the premises provide the sort of justification for the conclusion whereby if the premises are true, the conclusion is guaranteed to be true as well. Loosely speaking, if the author’s process of reasoning is a good one, if the premises actually do provide this sort of justification for the conclusion, then the argument is valid.

In effect, an argument is valid if the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion. The following argument is valid, because it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to nevertheless be false:

Either Elizabeth owns a Honda or she owns a Saturn.
Elizabeth does not own a Honda.
Therefore, Elizabeth owns a Saturn.

"

This is a valid argument. Con has been proven false because my conclusions necessarily follow from the premises. It is otherwise impossible.

.

On to the question of soundness of argumentation (Which Con failed to provide, I will, however, guard against a soundness argument with this argument of mine own)

From the same source: "A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound."

This definition of sound forces us to consider the truth value of my argumentation. What is truth? Pilate once asked. If there had been Marriam-Websters around at the time, he would have found out that truth is:
1 a archaic : fidelity, constancy
b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance
2 a (1) : the state of being the case : fact (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality
b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true
c : the body of true statements and propositions
3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality
b chiefly British : true 2
c : fidelity to an original or to a standard


It is obvious that all my premises are true because they are in the state of being the case. Given the assumptions, which has no truth value, my arguments following are all very true. The same cannot be said for the Con case, where he did not build a case from first principles.

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
KingDebater

Con

1,2,3,4,5.
To add is to add something onto something else.
1+1=2
1+2=3
1+3=4
3-1=2
1+1=2
2+2=4
trolololololo
Muted

Pro

Con has not in any way attempted to refute my arguments. He uses the assumption that 1+1+1+1=4, but as I already showed, 1+1=2, and 1+1+1+1=5. This he has not refuted in the slightest. I therefore see no further need of defending my position.





Considering that Con is rather new to the site, I would like to extend to him a warm welcome and the wish that he betters his performance of tonight!

Thank you all for your attentiveness! (Yes, I do not hold the resolution true)
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
Pro's R2 was just: "Pro has just been asserting that I'm wrong. He gives no valid arguments. Correct me if I'm wrong, pro" I took upon myself the challenge to do just that.
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
Con dropped Pro's argument that 2+2= 4

The debate itself is the argument for pro, and the most conclusive argument I've ever seen.

Look at your round two, muted. It's semantical garbage and literally ALL definitions.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
@dylanCatLow, exactly which Con argument did Pro drop?
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
Con presented two correct proofs in his arguments. It's not necessary to do a stork dance around them in addition. Pro's arguments were based entirely on the idea that common meaning of "2" should not be used for the debate.

It does happen in debates that readers are so impressed by the rainbow of horsepucky thrown into the air that they vote for the game effort rather than the simple truth of the arguments.
Posted by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
Votes
Posted by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
Why all the cotes for Con you may ask, Simple, Con managed to calculate a simple equation and present it. 2+2=4. Really do you need to be told.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
Methinks all of the more recent voters have not been voting according to the debate. Although it is true that 2+2=4, this is a debate, and a debate is never judged on solely on which is more truthful. A debate like this is always judged on who had the better argument. It is evident that I made better, though false, arguments in the debate. The point of a debate is to present a point in an essay which is well articulated. Although, once again, the resolution is false, voters should not be voting based on their own opinions of what is false/true, but on what is presented in the debate. Con could have won this debate if he'd put in more effort, which he did not. So why all the vote cons?
Posted by morgan2252 4 years ago
morgan2252
Fritz:

I disagree. I think you can actually win a debate on whether or not God exists. In fact, even though I am an atheist, I have sometimes voted in favor of the theist on religious debates because he/she simply does a better job. If you haven't already, take a look at the debates in my comment below.

I think you may be saying that because there are more open atheists in one place than you're used to. Many atheists are afraid to talk in public because they're afraid people will begin to beat on them. ("YOU WILL GO TO HELL IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN MY RELIGION!! MY RELIGION IS SUPERIOR TO ALL OTHER RELIGIONS, THEREFORE MAKING ME A GOOD PERSON!!" Wow. That sounds like something a kind person would say.) In fact, about 60% of the people in the world are some form of Christian. This website allows one to voice his/her beliefs basically anonymously, and therefore, more atheists are open about it. I, myself, don't like to talk religion in public because it only starts fights. Here, talking about your religious beliefs actually seems encouraged. The bottom line is, more atheists than normal does not mean atheists are the majority.

And if even after looking at everything I said and you still don't believe me, just try debating another topic other than religion. Someone else will probably agree with you on that. :-)
Posted by FritzStammberger 4 years ago
FritzStammberger
I know the debate.org stats say there are more christians than atheists on here but you and I both know (if you are on here a lot) That there is hardly a christian in sight, yet the atheists are out in force. This is a tangible reality on this site. Honestly try to tell me this is not so.
Posted by morgan2252 4 years ago
morgan2252
Fritz:

You said, "If you went into a church to debate atheism do you think you would win the vote count?"

The fact is, there are more theists than atheists on DDO. Theists have won debates on whether God exists.
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

No offense, Fritz, but if you want to win a debate, please back up your argument when you make assertions. I have looked at your previous debates, and you have made assertions without providing any proof. Check out the debates listed above to see that theists have indeed won debates.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
KingDebaterMutedTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: No. Just...no. EDIT: countering lannan13's vote bomb.
Vote Placed by lannan13 4 years ago
lannan13
KingDebaterMutedTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con just trolled and all of pro's arguments were left unscaved. The other 3 points is to counter Deadlykris's vote bomb.
Vote Placed by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
KingDebaterMutedTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: "The fact of the matter is that if I define 2 to be the half of 5, and 1 to be the half of 2, then 1+1=2 and 1+1+1+1=(1+1)+(1+1)=2+2=5. This, within the definition I am using, elegantly and simply proves the fact that 2+2=5." The above pretty much sums up Pro's argument. WHY WOULD 2 BE HALF OF 5. If you just axiomatically start out with something that is intrinsically false, any manipulation to the false 'fact' in question will be intrinsically false. Don't be fooled into thinking Pro won the debate because he was the better 'debater'. If you actually read his 'arguments', they are garbage, even for a troll debate. He consistently dropped Con's arguments while claiming Con was doing the same. This is Con's argument essentially: "2+2=4 " It's a tautology, yes, but that's the only valid argument that will be found within this debate. I understand this is a joke debate, and I've voted for the obviously incorrect but well-presented case before, but Pro did not earn it.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
KingDebaterMutedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter V.B.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
KingDebaterMutedTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is deluded
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
KingDebaterMutedTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were pure semantic nonsense. Con needed to say nothing to win the debate, because 2 + 2 = 4 is well known as true and within the scope of everyone's knowledge. It is self-evident from the commonly understood meaning of the symbols. The artistry of Pro's attempt at selling baloney is nothing to reward. It's unusual for universal common knowledge to be the best source, but in this case it is.
Vote Placed by tmar19652 4 years ago
tmar19652
KingDebaterMutedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not provide any real logical arguments, and they seemed to be a troll.
Vote Placed by TheWalkingDrums 4 years ago
TheWalkingDrums
KingDebaterMutedTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used Mathematical explanations while Pro used Logical arguments. Let us remind that Mathematics and Logic are still different, though related. By Mathematical rule: 2+2 =4 1+1 = 2 2+1 = 3 3+1 + 4 (1+1)+(1+1) (2)+(2)=4
Vote Placed by The_Chaos_Heart 4 years ago
The_Chaos_Heart
KingDebaterMutedTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't give any form of real argument, so they lose that quite easily. I'm docking Pro conduct however, for their usage of semantics.